About your Search

20130202
20130210
STATION
CSPAN 5
KQEH (PBS) 4
MSNBC 4
MSNBCW 4
WHUT (Howard University Television) 3
WETA 2
CNBC 1
CSPAN2 1
KCSM (PBS) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 44
Search Results 0 to 43 of about 44 (some duplicates have been removed)
, people like bob rubin and larry summers who are close confidants of the obama administration are probably telling them, "look, if we start prosecuting all kinds of people for you know, x, y and z, there's going to be major instability in the markets. people are going to flee america. they're going to withdraw capital from the american financial system. it'll be a disaster. jobs will be lost." but it's just not an acceptable it's explanation. i think they're -- >> why? >> well, just because the rule of law isn't really the rule of law if it doesn't apply equally to everybody. i mean, if you're going to put somebody in jail for having a joint in his pocket, you can't let higher ranking hsbc officials off for laundering $800 million for the worst drug dealers in the entire world. people who are suspected, not only of dealing drugs, but of thousands of murders. i mean, this is an incredible dichotomy. and eventually, you know, it eats away at the very fabric of society when some people go to jail and some people don't go to jail. >> but do you ever have the sense that those guys are, you know
. you know, people like bob rubin and larry summers who are close confidants of the obama administration are probably telling them, "look, if we start prosecuting all kinds of people for you know, x, y and z, there's going to be major instability in the markets. people are going to flee america. they're going to withdraw capital from the american financial system. it'll be a disaster. jobs will be lost." but it's just not an acceptable it's explanation. i think they're -- >> why? >> well, just because the rule of law isn't really the rule of law if it esn'apply uay to everybody. i mean, if you're going to put somebody in jail for having a joint in his pocket, you can't let higher ranking hsbc officials off for laundering $800 million for the worst drug dealers in the entire world. people who are suspected, not only of dealing drugs, but of thousands of murders. i mean, this is an incredible dichotomy. and eventually, you know, it eats away at the very fabric of society when some people go to jail and some people don't go to jail. >> but do you ever have the sense that those guys are, you
outlets are facing criticism after it was revealed they complied with an obama administration request to hide the location of a secret u.s. drone base in saudi arabia. the base was first used in 2011 to kill muslim cleric and u.s. citizen anwar al awlaki. the paper discusses location of the first time this week, reportedly because the base's architect, john brennan, is now nominated to head the cia. the washington post admitted there were also part of "in informal arrangement among several news organizations that have been aware of the location for more than a year." critics are questioning the papers' silence, particularly because other outlets noted the location of the base months ago. the times of london mentioned it in july 2011 while fox news notification and an online article before broadening the language to say "arabian peninsula." adrian chen wrote -- a hunt is underway in southern california for former police officer accused of killing three people and launching a targeted offensive against the l.a. police department. christopher dorner, a former navy reserve lieutenant, pos
, without due process. but now, the obama administration is using that same authorizeation, that same justification to -- the same authorization, rather, to justify the use of drones. the aclu among others, has raised questions about this. chamcy is the spokesperson for the aclu. >> essentially claimed that the executive branch can be judge, jury and executioner in cle declaring american citizens and targeting them for killing far from any battlefield >> bill: so that is the problem. i mean, it seems to me that we are really saying yeah, the president can be -- well put, judge, jury and executioner. due process? there is no more. due process is out the window. there is no need to prove in a court of law, no judge is involved here at all. no jury is involved here at all. that person is guilty. this high-level informed high-level official of the united states decides that that person is guilty and we just send a drone in to whack 'em. i don't know about you. this is scary stuff. this will raises a lot of serious questions. i think we have got to be as
policies of the obama administration, not just the secretive drone strike but using the right to use it against american citizens. this came up in 2007 when a drone strike killed awlaki and kahne, both u.s. citizens and neither charged with a crime. and we have extra judicial killings by the u.s. government without any judicial review and any right of the citizen to argue his or her case in court. these are very sticky issues. the legal basis for these strikes has been kept a secret by the obama administration. you may remember we had huge fights back in the bush era about the legal memos for enhanced interrogation tactics, the so-called torture memos. ultimately they became public. this is viewed by some as an analogy for that, secret memos upon which huge u.s. government policies, with grave consequences are being made. we got a copy of this memo, which is not the olc memo, the office of legal council memo but a white paper, 16 page white paper that mirrors and tracks it and gives us much more detail about what the legal basis for these strikes are. >> you draw a great analogy with
an american for assassination, it's the obama administration advancing novel legal theories. >> we have have as a basis for action a congressional statute that allows us to to operate and balking at congressional oversite. >> i have nothing on alleged memos regarding potentially classified memphis. >> this president when he was a senator excoriated the bush administration for its presumption of an imperial presidency and presidential powers. now that he's the president, he's lucky he doesn't have a senator obama who is chas chastg him from the floor of the united states senate. >> reporter: some of the obama supporters dabbing at the sand man in their eyes appear to have awakend to the double standard. >> i have to say i was definitely on the critical end of things as were members of my family. we were very, very, very concerned about how far the bush administration pushed the boundaries of not only what is constitutional but what is morally right, and this is definitely in the same category. >> obviously a democratic administration white house secret war policy memos are very different from
and killed and on the contrary the obama administration is a allowing the targeting of american citizens to die. killing them without allowing them any legal recourse, no safeguards in place and the killings themselves are based on limits that one aclu official likely called elastic, vaguely defined and easily manipulated and d in the pro process killing many other nontargetted human beings in one case innocent children. i have to ask are the democrats going to rake obama over the coals like they did george w. bush? what about the news media? are we going to start seeing outrage from the networks? that is doubtful. there will be silence from the lap dogs in the obama mania media. in terms of the sher depth and breadth of hypocrisy and this story this is about the hardest story to beat. joining me with reaction from the american center for law and justice, jay seculw and dennis kucinich. welcome back to hannity. and dennis is now part of the family. let me get this straight. so eit enhanced interrogation is torture, it is unconstitutional and contrary to our ideas. it is not who we are bu
obama has gone lightyears beyond what the bush administration did. and by the way, if bush ever attempted this narrative, these policies, i'm telling you democrats would have been calling for are bush's impeachment. it is important to remind the american people exactly what the bush administration did in terms of terrorists. they endorsed enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding on exactly three, that's it, three high value terrorist detainees. one being khalid shaikh muhammad who was the mastermind of 9/11. no terrorist was ever water boarded and killed and on the contrary the obama administration is a allowing the targeting of american citizens to die. killing them without allowing them any legal recourse, no safeguards in place and the killings themselves are based on limits that one aclu official likely called elastic, vaguely defined and easily manipulated and d in the pro process killing many other nontargetted human beings in one case innocent children. i have to ask are the democrats going to rake obama over the coals like they did george w. bush? what a
what? we would be raising hell and i think we ought to raise hell now with the obama administration doing it and demand some answers. what is the policy relating to drones? >> announcer: this is the "bill press show." have the data and i want them to have the passion. show, to be able to come away armed with the facts, and the arguments to feel confident in their positions. i want them to have the data and i want them to have the passion. alright, in 15 minutes we're going to do the young turks. i think the number one thing that viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. they know that i'm not bs'ing them with some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know that i'm going to be the first one to call them out. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us. >> announcer: heard around the country and seen on current tv this is the "bill press show." >> bill: talking about this latest justice department memo sayin
in the administration has said that indicates they're going to have a universal registry. >> and obama care wasn't a tax until they needed it to be a tax. >> well, it's the supreme court that said that. >> i don't think you can trust these -- >> while la pierre says he can't trust the president, he also apparently can't trust his own members. nine in ten americans support universal background checks, including 74% of nra members. given the fact that more than 1,200 people have been killed by guns since the massacre at sandy hook elementary, it would seem that the call for reform remains urgent, and the desire for change no less so. ryan, i actually thought that the footage of la pierre from 1999 was really powerful given the fact that he is really -- it is a full-throated endorsement of universal background checks. do you agree with paul that the nra has revealed itself to be an insane organization and that has actually changed things over the debate over gun safety laws? is. >> it's run by lunatics. that's clear. people that were not always lunatics. you know, he was among those 70% to 90% that backed
as for the obama administration going forward. >> the clip tons established a standard for full disclosure. it caused them a few headaches when people found out who was contributing to the clinton foundation. once that was done the nomination proceeded. that's the precedent we're dealing with here. >> chuck hagel gave a lot of speeches, joel. he will not disclose the source of that funding. they were overseas -- involved in an investment bank or private equity operation in nebraska, did a lot of foreign funding. chuck hagel was engaged in that stuff. he is not going to tell. you remember many years ago after the horrible 9/11, they had a commission. they wanted henry kissinger to run that commission. not even full time. he refused to disclose his foreign funding sources and clients. so i got to believe that hagel won't. >> that's right, of course kissinger got into a lot of trouble there and had to pull out. hare reid said at the time what are they hiding? the kissinger folks and the bush administration. that's the same question that hagel is facing now. i think the real question is the lo
the obama administration, an international field some change is coming to haiti. . jobs have been created, schools have been built, yet, gender-based violence remains severe. today i'm introducing a resolution calling attention to the plight of haitian women and children and calling for action on their behalf. with the strategy to prevent gender-based violence, the obama administration is on the right track. congress and the administration must ensure robust funding for these initiatives, including the u.s. agency of international development, gender equality and female empowerment policy to meet the continuing need. for me, this issue is personal. i've seen the tent cities firsthand. i have spoken with the women. i have counseled the victims and witnessed the scars of indignation and pain. i feel the anguish in my bones. but i also feel the hope. let's work together to ensure that no woman in haiti, no woman in this hemisphere or in this world has to bear the indignity of sexual violence. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoma
responses. the obama administration is under fire for its controversial drone program. now the white house is defending its right to target americans without due process. we wanted to know do you think that anything is okay in protecting our homeland or is it over the line. kathy from arkansas said i want our homeland protected at any cost. i'm terrified terrorists will attack the country. david from south carolina said we're becoming too dependent on technology to fight terrorism. we need an influx of human intelligence. >> thanks everyone who responded. we appreciate it. have a great day. "fox & friends" starts right now. >>gretchen: good morning. i'm gretchen carlson. it's wednesday, february 6, 2013. thanks for sharing your time today. what a difference four years make. democrats now say it is their right to kill americans as they see fit, the same party who said it was wrong for george bush to torture terrorists. is there hypocrisy? >>steve: come get your gun insurance. good idea? what do you think? we're going to report and you decide. >>brian: a good lesson for anyone. why it is nev
generating a lot of controversy. the secret u.s. drone campaign and how the obama administration is it using it in a key weapon in the fight with suspected terrorist. there are no checks and balances and some say it gives the president a license to kill . others complain that the mere fact that the program is in place is it hypochrisy because the president and his allies are tough on the bush administration. joining us is a specialops wing man who is author of the book. naitance director. >> naitance. >> great to have you here today. it is it a busy news we wanted to talk about what is at play here? what is your first thouts when you learned that the program was in place and could target americans? >> one it is it a great idea to take a terrorist out it doesn't matter how we take them out. whether we walk up close and shoot them or hit them from a drone at 20,000 feet. but the problem is it we are targiting americans. there can never be anyone in a position to have unlateral decision making on killing americans. guys like me and the men and women of the military and the intelligence agencies
dropping. >> let me just tell you, first of all, i challenged the bush administration and the obama administration equally on the constitutional issues. my concern here is that they're not making america any safer, when 15% of the people hit by drone strikes are innocent civilians, you're creating a lot of animosity. it's making america more vulnerable. not less vulnerable. and beyond all that, they're violating the 4th, 5th and the 14th amendment of the constitution. i don't know if they teach pretzel making at harvard law school, but what they've done here is twist the constitution into a pretzel and that's not appropriate. >> steve: where is the outrage? five years ago there was plenty of outrage, mainstream media and the left. take a look at this right here. 144, screen left, democrats questioned george w. bush on gitmo and interrogation. 18 had questions for him regarding eavesdropping and parts of the patriot act. only 8 democrats are questioning the president with these drone strikes where people are getting killed. >> well, there is no question that a party wants to support
and expanded under president obama. brennan's defense of the secrecy surrounding the administration's most questionable program, targeted assassinations using drone aircraft, was as opaque as the program itself. >> what we need to do is optimize transparency on these issues, but at the same time optimize secrecy and the protection of our national security. i don't think that it's one or the other. it's trying to optimize both of them. >> some senators, including ron widen and angus king, pushed brennan to explain the legal at and justification for assassinating american citizens abroad. >> every american has the right to know when their government believes it's allowed to kill them. >> i understand you can't have co-commanders in chief, but having the executive being the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, and the executioner all in one is very contrary to traditions and the laws of this country. >> brennan argued essentially that the ends justify the means. >> the decision that is are made are to take actions so that we prevent a future action so we protect american lives. that is an inheren
that that is the threat, but nothing from the -- but nothing from the administration indicates that. >> obama care was not a tax until they needed to be a tax. >> that was the supreme court. host: weighing in on the conversation, the financial crisis, did it delay your retirement? on twitter you can participate as well. host: let's hear from sandra in virginia. hello. caller: i am the wife of a retired pastor. he is not retired, we cannot retire. because when the crash happened, we received notice from our retirement fund that in order for them to serve everyone, they were going to cut everyone, so we got a cut from 2100 per month to 1600 per month. my husband has to continue working, even though he is well past the age for retirement. they are talking about moving it up. while pasturing is not a hard job, physically, it is still a matter of going to work everyday and it is definitely an emotionally draining jobs. even though he is called a part- time minister, there is no such thing as a part-time anything in pastoral ministry. when people call on you, you come, and that is just the way that it i
of the questions were about drones and the obama administration's policy. nobody tougher on john brennan, asking better questions yesterday than our guest, senate ron wyden from oregon. good morning, senator. good to see you again. >> great to be on your show. as a basketball player i love the full court press. >> indeed. senator, you had written this letter. i saw you earlier this week. you told me you were sending this letter with 11 other senators to the white house saying we want you to release all of the memos related to drone policy. they did respond at least in kind. are you satisfied with what you received so far? >> bill, when the president called, it was clear that the president wanted to change course, and i give him credit for what is clearly an encouraging first step. >> that's right. he called you in response to that letter. didn't he? >> he did. and he also is offering up another very constructive idea. >> that's trying to start in the weeks ahead a dialogue with the public with respect to these issues. applying our checks and balances t
wrote to president obama asking for the underlining memos that the administration still has approdeclined to provide to congress. 11 senators signed that. a total of eight democrats and three republicans. democrat ron wyden was leading the charge on a letter. the chairman of the senate judiciary committee patrick leahy was on the letter on the democratic side. on the republican side, a motley crew of senators. you had mike lee of utah, grassley of iowa, susan collins of maine. that sort of indication of where you get concerned about the drone issue on the hill. you see a smattering of liberal democrats concerned in the house and a small handful of libertarian-leaning republicans that have expressed concerns on this issue. host: these underlying memos that the members of congress want, do they have to do with just drone strikes in general, drone strikes that have occurred against other alleged al qaeda operatives? guest: they may not happen to withdraw on strikes in general. they might have to do with drone strikes in specific. one of the issues that came up here is our anwar
that the obama administration has gotten the tax increases they have want. taxes have gone up on american families. revenue is up. now americans are asking congress to do the rest of the project, which is deal with the spending side of the equation and none of us want the across- the-board cuts you would get with the sequester. americans would like congress to do its job and try the areas that need to be cut. that is a two-way street. the white house has never set down on the other side of the table to engage. host: if the sequestration goes through, $85 billion across-the- board, what does that mean for the economy? guest: it means we are implementing what was agreed to in a bipartisan agreement in the past cycle. remember, all the parties sat down and said how can we work this through, and what is the amount of money we need to be spending? republicans and democrats started at different points, but came to an agreement that we need to begin cutting spending to the tune of $1.2 trillion over 10 years, so basically it would be and lamenting a bipartisan agreement. host: so, what is the li
the obama administration to do the right thing with this policy but you can't trust subsequent administrations. what if a neocon administration comes in after this? you can't trust them to use the policy in the right way. >> stephanie: my friend sent me this. she said this is a review from her friend who is a vietnam vet. just saw "zero dark thirty" and was disgusted by the politics of the film. torture a guy find bin laden three, find bin laden. no way you cannot see torture as a crucial element in finding bin laden. credit the torturers as heroes. the ends justifies the means. it isn't true. it is a fabrication. no credible evidence that led to bin laden's evidence was obtained by torture. human right abuses forced victims into giving up wrongful information that hurt our intelligence effort. "zero dark thirty" justifies america's use of torture incredibly reprehensible. it is dirty harry of our age. justify breaking the law and all moral codes endorse human rights violations, teach americans that abu ghraib torturing of americans is good. >> that's why i won't see it. >> ste
i think as this administration, the obama administration has done, of expanding it to include wounded soldiers and looking at ways that we can support even more veterans, so in the same way that president clinton had to look at the times when we were in office, we have to examine these new times when the reality is people are working longer and harder, and it's difficult to access the law so we need to ask ourselves what we can do differently. >> 20-year anniversary of fmla, can you believe that 1993 seems like just yesterday? why do you think this law is so important? >> the reason president clinton has people tell him it's appreciated, 100 million families have used it, 14,000 in 2011. this is a law that affect all strata of american society. the problem we have and mika has written about this in national memo is we're far behind other countries in this. far behind when it was passed and far behind the benefits -- >> how is in a? how are we behind? >> other countries have paid leave. they have paid leave for dads as well as moms when a pregnancy is -- a baby is born. >> chec
democrats continue their meeting since in virginia today. president obama adjust them. in administration and the news, secretary of state john carey has his first bilateral meeting with his canadian, board -- john kerry had his first bilateral meeting. and secretary panetta testified before congress on the benghazi attacked and also facing scrutiny was nominee for cia director. one of the things he talked about is how much of the public and congress should know about the u.s. drove stride program. we would like to hear your opinion. what is the balance between government secrecy and the public's right to know? here are the numbers to call -- you can also find us online -- here is the headline in "the baltimore sun" this morning. brennan targeted over drones. looking at some of the opinions coming in on the editorial pages of the newspapers. "usa today" -- that is of the newspaper's editorial board opinion. jumping down, it says -- the opposing view that "usa today" publishes to give a counterpoint says end the u.s. -- covert drone war. naureen shah at columbia's human-rights institute wr
to college, and there is so much more it to. obama seems to have a problem getting enough information out. his administration. >> stephanie: i have heard people say that. but jacki always says the messages may have been the problem, but there is a lot of good stuff in there, and once it starts to kick it people will see that. it can't be said enough that we have got to keep talking about it, and explaining it. >> yeah, like the idea of death panels, the real death panels were the insurance companies. >> stephanie: right. okay. seventeen minutes after the hour, right back on the "stephanie miller show." >> announcer: there's something funny going on in talk radio. it's the "stephanie miller show." ♪ irene, drop the itch. we dropped the itch, you can too. with maximum strength scalpicin®. it's not a shampoo so you can stop intense itch fast wherever you are. i dropped the itch. free yourself from embarrassing scalp itch. drop the itch with maximum strength scalpicin®. also available scalpicin® 2 in 1, itch relief plus dandruff control. current tv is the place for t
, of course, is the incoherence and inconsistency of obama's so-called war on terror. remember, this is the administration that didn't even want to call it that. this is the administration that has been mocked because of overseas contingency operations, which screams islam afebruary every time its opponents champion the same sorts of homeland security policies they now are responsible for. >> brian: do you remember that bush 43 and bill clinton 42 were getting along while president bush was still in office. you remember how nixon helped out everyone, from clinton to ford. this would be a great opportunity for president obama at some point, maybe even on tuesday, to say, a lot of the policies i was critical of as a senator, now that i'm in that seat, i can support and my respect goes out to george bush that. would go a long way to getting something done in washington. am i dreaming? >> yeah. this guy has never actually taken the olive branch and used it the way it should be. he wields it like a club and i don't think we'll have that moment. you're right, brian. this would be a t
administrations. they have a tremendous institutional at vantage in this kind of bias. i think what republicans have to do is avoid these sites come at the straps the democrats and president obama are laying, provide an alternative to passing legislation, just to show them this is how we recover if we have the powers of the presidency and the senate and to be careful and frankly the rougher edges republicans sometimes have. >> host: some republicans aren't happy sr is moving ahead. >> guest: i think if they had gone ahead, it would have been cataclysmic for the republican party. i say that because it is the worst possible ground for republicans to make their argument. elections have consequences. president obama won. as much as i want, it's absolutely crucial to the future of the country. i think some house republicans not sympathetic to their concerns, i think that dcl sums is misplaced and what would've happened as he would've had this high-stakes confrontation and in the end he would've had republican would've been overwhelmingly again, so you could then at the beginning, thumping your chest
Search Results 0 to 43 of about 44 (some duplicates have been removed)